CORRECTION ORDER

ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 29OF THE EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000

This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00044164 issued on 26/01/2024and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Student	A Third Level Institution

Representatives

The claimant represented herself

Edward Leahy Leahy Reidy Solicitors LLP

Thomas Wallace O Donnell BL

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00053779-001	18/11/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00053779-002	18/11/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00053779-003	18/11/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00053838-001	23/11/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00053838-002	23/11/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00053838-003	23/11/2022

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/05/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

At the commencement of the hearing ,the adjudicator requested the claimant to identify what complaints she was pursuing under the Employment Equality Act 1998 and the Equal Status Act 2,000 - the complainant clarified that there were two matters she wished to pursue and have investigated under the Equal Status Act 2,000 – the notification by the respondent of her Induction Days and the decision of the respondent to change the complainant’s location for training from E .

The complainant withdrew her complaints under the Employment Equality Act - file references CA-00053779-001, CA-00053779-002, CA-000553838-001 and CA-00053838-002.

This case contains references to sensitive information regarding the claimant’s disability therefore I have exercised my discretion and anonymised the decision.

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Both parties were requested to furnish written submissions in advance of the hearing date. The claimant furnished a series of documents in addition to copies of the ES1 form and a completed Student Complaint and Problem Resolution Application Form. The respondent advised that they would not be making written submissions “as it will all be done on evidence”. Documents exchanged between the parties were furnished and submitted into evidence at the hearing by the respondent. At the end of the hearing the respondent was requested to document his presentation and to furnish the document to the WRC and the claimant. The statement was furnished to the WRC and the complainant on the 22nd.June 2023 and the complainant was invited to submit her response to same within 4 weeks. Reminders to furnish her response to the respondents statement were issued to the claimant on the 31st.July 2023 and the 1st.September 2023.The claimant was contacted by phone on the matter on 2 occasions during the course of which the claimant indicated that she would require further time but would do so within a matter of weeks. As no response has been forthcoming from the claimant after a period of 6 months, I proceeded to issue the decision.

Background:

The claimant asserts that she was discriminated against by the respondent in relation to the notification of Induction Days and her placement to a different location on the grounds of disability and family status. She alleges that the respondent failed to reasonably accommodate her regarding her placement.

The respondent denies the claims and contends that the respondent did not discriminate against the claimant on any grounds, directly or indirectly.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant submitted as follows by way of correspondence to the WRC dated the 20th.March 2023-Workplace Relations Commission 20th March 2023

The claimant said she believed that her right to access to education (access to services/Education) under the Equal Status 2000 -2018 Act was denied due to the respondent’s inability to provide her with reasonable accommodations for work placement. She asserted this is an example of direct discrimination. She contended that her Academic supervisor disregarded her disability status, her family status and her children’s disability status and because of the lack of inclusive practices her health declined, and she was unable to complete my work placement module and would not be able to do so again due to financial constraints and health reasons. She stated that she was unable to undertake further educational opportunities due to restrictions in social welfare provision and worsening of her condition. She maintained that the respondent displayed elements of both indirect and direct discrimination which veers from the premise of the Equal Status Act 2000- 2018.

She asserted that the respondent create policies and the Social Care Work Programme which she was studying displays many elements of indirect discrimination which hinders people from socio-disadvantaged backgrounds from progressing or availing of third level education.

The claimant said she was a 3rd year student at the respondent’s university on the Social Care Work programme and supposed to complete 400 hours compulsory unpaid work placement. Her C.V was forwarded to an organisation in E on the 24th of August 2022 and on the 25th of August by phone interview she was offered a placement at Site E. The claimant advanced that she made her Academic Supervisor aware of her disability and furnished her with my academic inclusion notice, which stated that she have a neurological condition and have symptoms such as sensory difficulties and experience temporary numbness, tingling and/or paralysis in her face and hands. On the 1st of September the claimant had a meeting with the Academic Supervisor who according to the claimant inferred that accommodations in work placement are not feasible (direct discrimination). The claimant indicated that she also informed her academic supervisor that her children had the same condition as her. She asserted that the Supervisor then told her that she had to attend 3 compulsory induction days the following week on the 6th , 7 th, and 8th of September 2022. The claimant said she had no notice of this prior to that day and all the information stated that the college semester placement would commence on the 12th of September. This short notice for compulsory induction did not give her adequate time to adjust to her environment. The claimant said she was a single parent with sensory difficulties and during the summer holiday period because of the responsibility of caring for her children fulltime she did not not venture forth into populated areas and needed an adjustment period to adjust to sensory stimulation or else her condition would worsen – she referenced this as direct discrimination. The claimant said she should have been notified earlier as she communicated with the then head of department on the 17-06- 2022 that she would be undertaking placement in September 2022, but communication in the college amongst departments is very haphazard. She said this situation caused my condition to worsen.

The claimant said that she commenced placement on the 12th of September 2022 but on the 15th of September, she was told that the placement location would need to be changed due to CORU criterion but she maintained that 2 other students from the college were allowed to remain at her first placement location. These students did not have children with or without needs and she said she was not aware of their disability status nor was it her concern. The change of placement location meant she would have to commute 3 hours daily, 5 to 6 days a week over a period of 13 weeks, plus work unpaid for 35 hours a week, plus complete 25 assignments and a 3,200-word intervention as well as be the solo caregiver to 3 children with additional needs. The change in placement almost meant that she had reduced time in completing her placement and had the extra worry of ill devised policies in place the Social Care Work Programme (the attendance policy) creating extra worry and stress for her in case her children got sick. The claimant felt that was too much to be expected of a single parent with sensory challenges plus other health challenges. She complained to both her Academic Supervisor and Head of Department and explained the financial difficulty this would cause because of her single parent status plus and she told her of her disability status again. According to the claimant she was basically told to get on with and to tell her when she started my new placement. The claimant asserted that her academic supervisor disregarded both her family status and her disability status which she submitted is inclusive of her limited financial resources as a single parent of 3 and her many health challenges.

According to the claimant – as she expected she experienced health difficulties when she began her placement, her condition worsened and her ability to perform was almost non-existent. She asserted that she was experiencing tremors, paralysis of her sensory challenges were the worst they ever had been , and she had to put her energy into regulating herself due to the increased workload. She was let go from that placement and said that for the first time in her life she was ashamed of her condition.

The claimant advanced that she was now unable to return to third level education due to financial restrictions and social welfare restrictions. The respondent deprived her of her right to avail of 3rd level education and in doing so deprived her of the chance to become more financially viable, ensuring that her children and she will live in poverty. And given that the course she was studying was a Social Care Work Programme, a programme that was devised and taught by Social Care Workers, she asserted that it was appalling that they firstly devised a programme that makes it exceedingly hard for people from marginalised backgrounds to avail of their educational service and secondly that it expects disabled people to have the same ability as everyone else without reasonable accommodations.

The claimant had lodged a complaint regarding the notification of the Induction Days , the location of her placement and other matters including garda vetting via the college’s Student Complaint and Problem Resolution Procedure – extracts of the complaint that are relevant to the instant complaint are set out below :

The claimant submitted that the complaint is with regard the lack of inclusive practices with the college and the disorganisation of numerous departments within this educational institute and how these impacts on the students within and hinders their ability to progress academically. She said the respondent proclaims to support and assist those from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds but yet introduces policies that make it exceedingly impossible for some groups to progress, a prime example of this would be the attendance policy for students undertaking unpaid work placement in Social Care Work. She questioned why the college disregarded the differentials in family circumstances which this policy was coined and implemented. Those who devised the programme have a social care background and have studied and witnessed inequality in their work. So why did they create a policy which prohibits parents including single parents from taking time off when their children are sick. According to the claimant the Equal Status act infers that educational institutes must not discriminate under nine grounds and the ground that would pertain to this is the family status and how the polices within the college creates indirect discrimination for parents especially single parents in completing their studies. Currently under covid legislation , she advised that if a child has any symptom of Covid however minor they are and they are unable to attend school. She questioned why should parents be penalised for abiding government regulations? The claimant submitted that single parents are regarded to be the most improvised groups in Irish society with higher levels of deprivation than any other group. She argued that in essence you are creating more disadvantages and continuing the poverty cycle for single parents. Most single parents who return wish to be become more financially secure for their child(ren)s sake, but yet the college denies them that right and disregards the negative consequences it has upon them

The claimant said her first experience of disorganisation this year was how she was only informed of compulsory induction days on the 6th, 7th and 8th for work placement in Social Care Work the Friday (the 2nd of September). Prior to this the previous Head of Department of the Site C social sciences department had informed DASS that she would be repeating the year. So, she said she had to organise childminders, lifts etc, at short notice all of which incurring a cost. She asserted am a single parent with 3 children and also registered with the disability service ( in respect of which she made her Academic supervisor aware). So simply the simple act of bestowing essential information in a timely manner was denied to and created more stress and unexpected financial costs for her at short notice. The claimant submitted that this is highly unprofessional conduct on the part of the staff of the college , if a student was to make a similar mistake they would be reprimanded. She asked why aren’t staff held accountable for their actions, especially when it impacts students who already experience disadvantages and face challenges in participating in further education such as single parents and people with a disability of which she meet 2 criteria.

Another part of her complaint was how the college disregards students’ family circumstances in how they procure placements. She said she was offered a placement at Site E and signed the paperwork and agreed on work hours. Then she was told 4 days into placement her Practice Educator did not meet the criterion for placement and an alternative placement was precured without her knowledge well out of her preferred placement area. She maintained her academic supervisor was well aware that she was a single parent with 3 children and that she was registered with the disability service. She said had all her childminding arrangements made so she could commence placement at Site E, which meant her driving 50 minutes in the morning and evening. Then providing her an alternative placement 45 minutes from where her last childminder drop off was, meaning if she was to attend that placement she would be commuting 3 to 3 and a half hours a day, working 33 to 35 hours a day plus making time for academic, whilst also raising 3 children solely on her own as well as managing the difficulties her disability has upon her. She maintained this was disregarding her family circumstances, the limitations imposed on her because of her disability or she asked - is equality not relevant when it comes to work placement. She asserted that she asked her Academic Supervisor for guidance and basically all she said to her was take the alternative placement, no assistance no guidance at all. She queried why she did not advocate on her behalf as 2 other students were able to remain on site, one who had the same supervisor as her. According to the claimant , these students did not have children and it is not her business to query their health status, but realistically she should have been assisted to see if an alternative arrangement could have being made in her placement, as there are 2 full time social care workers working in Site E, the Team leader who signed documentation stating that he will be her supervisor, a recent graduate from the college plus some part time social care workers staff. She questioned do the college staff not understand that is financially feasible to expect students to commute 3 plus hours to obtain placement.

At the hearing the claimant referenced difficulties with paying for her course – she said she could only repeat if she paid for herself and as a result her ability to continue on her course was undermined. She referenced other students who did not have children being accommodated and criticised the poor notice received for the Induction Days in September and submitted that communication by the college was very haphazard.

In her direct evidence the claimant asserted that the change of location would involve a 3 hour per day commute – she could not change schools attended by her children and the claimant would have to drive very slowly to Site C . She submitted that because of her sensitivity to light – it would be a danger to travel such a long distance.The claimant asserted that she told Ms.B of her sensory disorder on the 1st.Sept. 2022 and that her children had the same condition as her.

In response to Dr. X’s evidence the claimant submitted as follows - the claimant referred to the matter of fees and bursaries and questioned CORU requirements regarding placements. The claimant said she never had to pay fees before when she repeated She also referred to the issues she had raised with the witness under the Student Complaints and Problem Resolution Procedures. The witness – Dr.X - referred to her emails with the claimant seeking to engage on a one to one basis and referenced the placement preference form.

In response to Ms.B’s evidence the claimant asked the witness about the inclusion of the Academic Inclusion Notice , the witness replied that she questioned the claimant regarding its application to placement but she did not reply. The witness said she told the claimant that the inclusion notice was academically based and needed to be updated with the assistance of the Disability Officer. The claimant replied that you still have a disability whether on placement or in the academic stream. The witness said it was not her role to make a decision on disability and that it was a matter for the Disability Office.

In response to Ms.A’s evidence , the claimant submitted that her complaint was about the long commute with long distances giving rise throughout her placement to shakes , tremors and sensory overload.

In response to Ms.D’s evidence , the claimant referenced the matter of photographs and contended that she was never given the minutes of the meeting / hearing of the 2nd.Dec. 2022.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The names of the parties referred to in this submission are anonymised –

Dr. X – Assistant Registrar – former Head of Dept.

Ms. A -Placement Committee

Ms. B -Claimant’s Academic Supervisor

Ms. D- Head of Dept

Ms. Y – Careers & Employability

Ms. Z – Disability Officer

Introduction

1. The Respondent understands that the Complainant has brought six complaints, all of which were effectively merged by the WRC under the above Adjudication File Reference. It appears that the only Workplace Relations Complaint Form received by the Respondent concerned two Employment Equality complaints and one Equal Status complaint.

2. In the interest of fair procedures, the Respondent requests that, should a further hearing date be scheduled herein, the same should be physical/in person and not remote, given the difficulties which arose on the previous date.

3. At the hearing hereof the Complainant confirmed that she was only proceeding with her complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000 which concerned the alleged short notice she was given by the Respondent regarding induction days, and her removal by the Respondent from placement in E.

4. The Respondent is unaware of precisely what complaint the Complainant is making. If she is alleging that the Respondent failed to reasonably accommodate her regarding her placement, she did not produce a further academic inclusion notice regarding same. If she is alleging that she should have been in some way accommodated regarding her children, she failed to deal with this adequately in her placement preference form regarding any child’s disabilities. Given that she lives between her old and new placements, it is incredible to say that moving from one to the other constitutes discrimination. Therefore, the Complainant has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case.

5. From her WRCF it appears the Complainant claims the Respondent discriminated against her in the provision of education and failure to provide her with reasonable accommodation on the grounds of disability and family status. From the hearing of the within complaints, the Respondent and its legal advisers are none the wiser as to how exactly the alleged discrimination manifested itself.

6. The Respondent accepts entirely that the Complainant has a disability as was identified in the academic inclusion notice prepared by the Respondent on the 25th October, 2018. This document notes that the Complainant is registered with the Respondent’s disability service and that she experiences migraines and neurological condition, and as a result requires various accommodations during lectures, labs and tutorials. It also lists the additional examination requirements which she requires during timed examinations and assessments including timed in class assessments, where reasonable.

7. At no time did the Respondent discriminate against the Complainant on any ground, directly or indirectly.

8. Background .

Both complaints of the Complainant concern the Respondent’s placement of social care students in appropriate social care environments with eligible practice educators supervising and assisting them. Social care work is regulated by CORU within the state. While the placing of social care students in placements is the responsibility of the Careers and Employability office of the Respondent (hereinafter “C&E”), the academic staff have responsibility for ensuring academic quality when the student is successfully placed with an agency. The academic supervisor allocated to the student completes a one to one meeting with the student prior to the student being placed and prior to that a preferred placement form is completed by the student.

9. The academic placement committee of the Respondent of which the student’s academic supervisor is a member approves placement providers on certain criteria, including that the practice educator, who is the person who supervises the work of the student, has a social care work qualification or is eligible to register with CORU and that the practice educator is two years post qualification.

Facts

10. Ms A’s Document 1 is a copy of an e-mail to C&E dated of the 4th May, 2022 which stresses the importance of cross referencing approved practice educators with agencies in line with regulatory compliance. The said e-mail concerned returning students for semester 1 of 2022-2023, which included the Complainant.

11. Ms A’s Document 2 is an excerpt from the Respondent’s Careers and Employability Process for Placement of Social Care Students which was submitted to CORU as part of the education provider’s approval process. A full copy of this document has been provided. It outlines the agreed process for placing students and the responsibility of C&E to confirm the name of the practice educator, generate an online form, include the information in an Excel file on the live tracker on an MS Teams page to which the academic placement committee have access. In addition, it outlines that once students are placed, it is the responsibility of C&E to cross reference the name of the identified practice educator with the approved practice educators database and to send the practice educator paperwork if their name is not included on same. The same system operates for both second and third year students and the inference is that students are placed, when offered a place, subject to practice educator approval rather than at the beginning of their placement, as students are generally placed the semester before their placement begins.

12. Ms A’s Document 3 is an excerpt from the Respondent’s Careers and Employability Process for Regulatory Compliance. This was also submitted to CORU as part of the said education provider’s approval process.

13. September to December, 2018 the Complainant attended and successively completed Professional Development 1, which included being informed about the requirements of placement and compliance with CORU being the regulator for social care work. In January, 2019 she attended induction prior to going on Practice Education Placement which involved the discussion of CORU placement requirements. In September, 2021 she attended induction prior to going on Practice Education Placement 2 where CORU placement requirements were discussed.

14. The Complainant was eligible to undertake Year 3 of social care work programme in the year 2020 - 2021. Her academic results are included with Dr.X’s documents. In or about January, 2021, approximately halfway through the academic year of 2020-2021, the Complainant contacted Dr X who, at that time was head of the relevant department, inquiring about her options to return to her programme of study. Thereafter she forwarded medical certification retrospectively in respect of the first semester which she had missed, which was filed with the faculty office.

15. In March, 2021 the Complainant made an enquiry about the reinstatement of her bursary and was advised to contact the bursary office directly as would be normal practice. Dr X had no more contact from the Complainant until December, 2021 when the latter advised that the Year 3 placement was incomplete arising from illness and that there was a minimum regulatory requirement for 800 hours to be undertaken in the program by CORU.

16. In January, 2022 the Complainant advised Dr X that she wished to complain about her supervisor. DrX assigned a new supervisor the same day.

17. Thereafter the Complainant was offered multiple dates to meet and discuss her concerns, and a meeting took place on the 20th May, 2022 on Teams. The outcome of the meeting was an agreement that the student was offered an “I” grade, standing for incomplete, which allowed her to retake all modules without fees, and recognised same as a first sitting and not a repeat. This was important as certain modules on the relevant program limited the number of repeat attempts. This was a very favourable resolution for the Complainant.

18. Documents regarding the foregoing are included with those of Dr X, who was no longer head of the department of applied social sciences as of June, 2022.

19. As the Complainant had remained registered for Year 3 in 2021 - 2022 she received a notification from Moodle mail sent on the 6th May, 2022 which was sent to those who needed to repeat a placement in 2022-2023. This Moodle mail is included as Document 4 with those of Ms A. The Complainant was active on this page between the 29th September, 2021 and the 12th September, 2022. This mail was again sent to the Complainant by Ms.B as set out below.

20. Notwithstanding that the Complainant was required to repeat placement, she had not applied to return. In fact, she did not officially register with the Respondent for the academic year 2022-2023 until the 13th September, 2022. On the 14th June, 2022, Ms.B emailed the Complainant asking her if she intended to return to placement in September, 2022 and offering her a one to one meeting on the 16th June, 2022. This e-mail attached the third year placement preference form which included, inter alia, a question asking the student if there were any specific support requirements in order for the student to be placed appropriately. There was no response from the Complainant prior to the end of the academic year on the 20th June, 2022. See Item 2 of Ms B’s documents.

21. Not having received confirmation from the Complainant regarding returning to repeat the said programme, C&E emailed the Complainant on the 29th July, 2022 saying that they had received correspondence from Dr X regarding placement and that to commence the relevant process could she respond to the social care academic programme team to complete a one to one meeting. See Item 3 of Ms B’s documents.

22. On the same day the Complainant replied asking who the social care academics were that she should contact. Once again, on the same day the said office replied copying Ms B who had been in contact with the Complainant in June, and asking the Complainant to follow up with her whereafter the placement process could commence.

23. By e-mail dated the 3rd August 2022, the Complainant apologised to Ms B for not responding to her June e-mail . She said that she was sick with COVID and a kidney infection at the time and had three sick children, with her youngest requiring a procedure in Crumlin. See Item 4 of Ms B’s documents.

24. The Complainant still not having completed and returned the placement preference form, Ms B emailed her on the 4th August, 2022 asking her to complete and return same whereafter there would be a one to one meeting via Teams at 11:00 AM on Thursday the 1st September. This was confirmed by the Complainant. See Item 5 of Ms B’s documents.

25. The Complainant’s completed placement preference form stated, inter alia, that she had access to a car and that regarding any specific support requirements, she enclosed the said academic inclusion notice from 2018 and said that it would be updated when the academic year commenced. While the said form did include that her preferred geographical location for placement was Site E it did not identify this as a support requirement or as being anything she was concerned about in relation to completing the replacement. Furthermore, the said academic inclusion notice concerned lectures, labs, tutorials, examinations and assessments and did not concern placements. See Item 8 of Ms B’s documents.

26. The time of the one to one meeting resulted in the first confirmation of the Complainant’s return as the academic team had no formal notification that she would be returning in September, 2022. At the meeting Ms B and the Complainant discussed the latter’s placement preference form. The Complainant said she was aware of a placement with in E and had contacted C&E about it. Ms B asked the Complainant if she had any specific support requirements to which the Complainant said that she intended to get an updated academic inclusion notice once the semester began. Ms B specifically asked the Complainant how the specific requirements in the existing 2018 academic inclusion notice would impact her on placement. The Complainant said they would not, as everything was fine, and she had no concerns about attending placement.

27. Ms B explained to the Complainant that the 2018 academic inclusion notice was based on lecture attendance and not specific to practice placement. She also made the Complainant aware that placement may be sourced outside of her preferred geographical area and that the Complainant had signed the placement preference form which clearly stated this. In no circumstances did Ms B on any occasion infer that accommodations in work placement were not feasible. Ms B advised her to engage with the disability service and the Complainant stated that she would provide an updated version of the notice once the new semester commenced. The 2018 academic inclusion notice was neither disregarded nor ignored. In fact, Ms B reached out to other staff members to inquire how best to support the Complainant based on the said 2018 document. No updated academic inclusion notice was received from the Complainant.

28. The only reference made by the Complainant to her children at this one to one meeting with Ms B, was that during a previous placement she had missed time due to her daughter being ill but that her health had now improved following an operation. Ms B was not aware at this time that the Complainant was a single parent of three children. This information was not raised as a concern for placement and therefore clearly was not discussed.

29. On the 2nd September, 2022 Ms.A , who was placement coordinator for E, emailed the Complainant forwarding an information e-mail which had been sent to returning third year students in June, 2022. Ms A also said that she was unaware that the Complainant had registered to repeat the semester but that she was looking forward to seeing the Complainant the following week. The said forwarded e-mail included notification of the mandatory induction days that would take place on the 6th, 7th and 8th September prior to the official start date for placement which was the 12th September, 2022. The said forwarded e-mail attached the placement handbook which included at page 18 thereof how C&E are to ensure practice educators are CORU compliant. See Item 11 of Ms B’s documents.

30. Whereas the Complainant has submitted that she received no notice of induction, had she engaged with Ms B in June, 2022, she would have been given ample notice. Furthermore, these induction days took place in or around the same days and weeks in September every year and the Complainant would undoubtedly have been aware of this. She would be aware from two previous occasions when she completed placement induction that the induction days take place before replacement begins. Students are informed through all the placement paperwork, that the induction and callback days to the college are mandatory and cannot be included in their placement hours. Therefore, if the Complainant understood that placement was due to begin on the 12th September, it follows that she would also understand that placement induction would begin before placement started. See Item 12 of Ms B’s documents.

31. On the 2nd September, 2022 Ms A emailed Ms Y of C&E, copying Ms B, stating that, inter alia, the current named practice educator for the Complainant was not from the social care profession and that, to the best of Ms A’s understanding, she did not believe there were any other appropriate practice educators in the relevant service in site E to supervise the placement. See Item 13 of Ms B’s documents.

32. In reply to Ms A, Ms Y stated, inter alia, that a social care worker at site C, may be in a position to supervise students but this had to be confirmed and a form completed.

33. On the 4th September, 2022 Ms B sent a group e-mail to placement students reminding them of the induction dates and asking them to bring any questions to be discussed in small group sessions. See Item 14 of Ms B’s documents.

34. On the 5th September, 2022 Ms A emailed various staff members of the Respondent addressing various items including the matter of the Complainant and others. She stated that it was the view of the academic placement committee that due to the extreme delay in these students engaging with the placement allocation process, they now had grave concerns that these students would be able to complete the requisite 400 hours on placement between the 12th September and the 23rd December, 2022. Furthermore, the e-mail addressed the issue of practice educators and stated that following a recent change in personnel at the said E site where the Complainant had been placed, the academic placement committee requested clarification of the status of the practice educators thereat and said that our worst case scenario would be having to replace the students elsewhere if the practice educator’s qualifications were not appropriate. See Item 15 of Ms B’s documents.

35. Furthermore, on the 5th September, 2022 the Complainant communicated to C&E that she had been interviewed in respect of the E placement and would be commencing on the 12th September, 2022.

36. It appears that a practice educator who had the appropriate qualifications had been a practice educator at the said E site, however she had left same.

37. The Complainant attended the three induction days on the 6th, 7th and 8th September, 2022 where requirements of placement allocation were discussed, including CORU requirements for practice educators. Other students had concerns about recent developments at Dublin Business School and discussion was had about the importance of being CORU compliant in the placement allocation process. See Item 16 of Ms B’s documents.

38. The Complainant raised no concerns whatsoever regarding attending the said induction days.

39. C&E established that the official practice educator form was awaited from the proposed practice educator at the said E site and that she had qualifications in sociology.

40. The academic placement committee established that the proposed practice educator at the said E site did not meet criteria 1 of the placement selection criteria in that she did not have a social care work qualification and was not eligible to register with CORU. In an e-mail on behalf of the said committee to Ms E of C&E, Ms A stated, inter alia, that the Complainant, in light of the said ineligibility of the proposed practice educator at the said E site, was identified now for placement with a suitable practice educator at the said C site. See Item 18 of Ms B’s documents.

41. On foot of the foregoing Ms Y contacted that said C site regarding the Complainant and another student. C&E informed the Complainant by e-mail on the 15th September, 2022 that her current practice educator at the said E site did not meet the said appropriate criterion and as a result she would be transferred to another site with an appropriate practice educator. It went on to say that this practice educator would be in touch regarding the placement. See Item 20 of MsB’s documents.

42. On foot of this the Complainant inquired with C&E by telephone about appealing against the finding of the ineligibility of the said site practice educator and also against her subsequent placement at C. She was informed that there was no appeals process regarding the said practice educator’s ineligibility, but that the Complainant was free to appeal against her allocated site and that it would be helpful if she could indicate an alternative placement site with an approved practice educator. The Complainant took this no further, other than to seek the details of the relevant Head of Department. See Items 19, 22 and 23 of Ms B’s documents.

43. Thereafter, e-mail correspondence ensued between the Complainant and Ms B where in the former queried the change of placement, expressed issues regarding childcare and her commute to the new placement, and took issue with the Respondent’s attitude to such matters. At no stage in her e-mail correspondence to the Complainant did Ms B direct her to “get on with it”. See Item 24 of Ms B’s documents.

44. In a telephone conversation on the 22nd September, 2022 the Complainant and Ms Y discussed the internal transfer from site E to site C. Ms Y apologised to the Complainant on behalf of C&E regarding the internal transfer. They discussed the transfer and rationale regarding the change in practice educator on site in E and communication from the placement committee. Ms Y sought an overview of the Complainant's current circumstances such as her home address, commitments, and travel. The Complainant did not mention any disability. Ms Y provided her with details of the C site and supports for the Complainant which Ms Y had already discussed with the person who was to be the Complainant’s on site practice educator in C. The Complainant was to consider these arrangements and Ms Y would ring her the following day to confirm the C placement.

45. The following day, the 23rd September, 2022, Ms Y rang the Complainant who agreed and confirmed the C placement with supports available. Ms Y said she would contact the Respondent’s disability office on the Complainant’s behalf to arrange an appointment with the disability officer. The Complainant raised the following concerns with Ms Y: she was awaiting follow up from academic programme team; she was concerned about what would happen should her children get ill during the placement; the impact it may have on the hours requirement of the placement. Ms Y suggested to the Complainant that she raise these concerns with the programme team as they were better placed to address placement issues such as hours and requirements set out by CORU.

46. On the 30th September, 2022 the Complainant emailed Ms B and C&E informing them that she would be starting her placement with a practice educator at Site C the following day being the 1stOctober, 2022. See Item 24 of Ms B’s documents.

47. On the 19th October, 2022 the Complainant’s practice educator inquired of Ms B by e-mail whether the Complainant could use her hours from the said E site as part of her placement hours. This request was to be discussed at the next academic placement committee meeting but before this occurred the Complainant's placement was paused.

48. Whereas two other students completed their placement with the same placement provider to which the Complainant had originally been assigned at the said E site, these were supervised by a different practice educator. It is a significant commitment by practice educators to accept and supervise students on placement. Furthermore, there was a capacity issue regarding this practice educator’s ability to supervise three students on placement.

49. A practice review meeting was held on the 26th October, 2022. A contemporaneous note of same can be seen at Document 6 of Ms A’s documents. This sets out the difficulties experienced in respect of the Complainant’s placement at site C and her attitude to same. Thereafter, her placement was terminated on the insistence of the placement provider.

50. On the 2nd December, 2022 the Complainant attended a meeting with the Head of Department, , student union representative, and , a social care work programme coordinator who took a note thereof, a copy of which is appended hereto. The reason for the meeting was to progress options for the Complainant due to her having failed her Year 3 placement. The Complainant agreed that she had read the notes of the said practice review meeting. She said she did not want to make a decision that day. The Dept.Head outlined the options the Complainant had. Other issues were raised. The matter of costs was discussed in respect of the Complainant being a single parent with three children. Her disability was discussed. The Complainant took issue with what she perceived to be a lack of consideration given to someone in her position. She wished to complete the placement that year. Various other matters were discussed as can be seen from the note of the meeting .

51. There are not inconsiderable differences between the E and C placement sites. The E site is a low threshold residential homeless service with residents in active addiction to both alcohol and substances. The building is a small residential building in the centre of E housing approximately 13 residents. The atmosphere therein can be described as intense with a high risk of volatile behaviour as being exhibited by many of the residents necessitating the involvement of the Garda from time to time. The staff constantly are on high alert and mindful of developing situations between the residents. Some individuals in the service would be considered at high risk of overdosing, engaging in aggressive, violent or destructive behaviour and a threat to other residents.

52. The C site is a residential service for refugees based in a hotel housing approximately 97 residents. The refugees require support settling into a new country and much of the role of students who are placed here is helping residents fill in medical card applications, registering for General Medical Practitioners, enrolling children in schools and childcare facilities, etc. The residents in this service are considered high functioning, requiring accommodation and some support in relation to accessing services. Individuals and families in this service live independently in their hotel rooms, only engaging with staff students when help or support is required. There is minimal behaviour of the type exhibited by residents in the E placement. The rationale for recommending this placement for the Complainant was, besides having access to an approved practice educator which was close to her home, on the basis of the second service being a more hands off service, with minimal stress and a better fit for the Complainant. This site was within the same services as the original placement and met with the criteria for the placement and was also in close proximity to the Complaints home.

53. The Complainant states that she had to commute three hours per day from the commencement of the C placement. This placement is approximately 18 minutes from her home, while the E placement site was approximately 26 minutes from her home. The Respondent does not accept the Complainant’s claim in respect of the commute. In any event, the other student on placement at the C site had a commute from a further location to the claimant’s . While every effort is made to secure a placement that is geographically favoured by a student, in many cases this is not possible due to availability rather than discrimination.

Conclusion

54. For the Complainant to say that she was provided with short notice of the induction days is unreasonable given her previous experience on the course and her failure to engage with the relevant department when initially asked to do so. Without prejudice to the foregoing, such a complaint should really be a grievance raised by engaging the appropriate internal process, which the Complainant did not allow to run its course prior to delivering an ES.1. Furthermore, the Complainant has failed to make any prima facie case that the alleged short notice was an occasion of discrimination on any ground, whether direct or indirect.

55. The disability in respect of which the Complainant put the Respondent on notice concerned participation in lectures, labs and such endeavours. In completing the placement preference form and when asked about requirements for placement by Ms B, the Complainant did not identify any requirements. The Complainant did not produce a further academic inclusion notice as she had said she would. In all the circumstances, the Respondent was and is not on notice of any requirements in respect of any disability concerning placement.

56. Even had the Respondent been on notice as aforesaid, the difficulty that arose regarding the E placement could only reasonably have been remedied appropriately by placing the Complainant in the C site.

57. Thereafter, in dealing with Ms Y the Complainant was clearly satisfied to commence her placement at the C site.

58. The Complainant failed to allow her internal grievance run its course before delivering an ES1 and thereafter submitting a complaint or complaints to the WRC.

59. The Complainant has failed to identify any comparator on respect of her complaints.

60. The student with whom the Complainant was on placement at the C site had to travel farther than the Complainant and is a single mother with young children.

At the hearing the respondent referenced the Academic Inclusion Notice which had been prepared with the Disability Officer confirming that the claimant is registered with the colleges Disability Service and setting out the accommodations required for lectures/ labs/ tutorials. The respondent’s representative indicated if further accommodations were required , a new Academic Inclusion Notice could issue. It was submitted that the college took disabilities extremely seriously.

It was submitted that in June 2022 , issues as to whether the claimant was going to start again with a repeat placement arose but that it wasn’t until August that the claimant confirmed she would be repeating .It was submitted that by the time the claimant made up her mind , many placements had already gone.

It was submitted that the Practise Educator in E – where the claimant had been placed – was not sufficiently qualified according to CORU regulations and that consequently an alternative placement would have to be sourced for the claimant. It was submitted that the respondent did all it could do to find somewhere else. While 2 other students were assigned to a different practise educator , the educator was not in a position to take on a third student and accordingly an alternative location was pursued.

It was submitted that induction takes place at standard times of the year and the claimant had left it very late to confirm she was repeating. It was submitted that many students had children and were given one weeks notice of the Induction – it was submitted that this was not unreasonable behaviour by the respondent. All the respondent was aware of was the issues set out in the academic inclusion notice and that there was no reference to travel – it was submitted that the claimant’s assertion that a C base would involve a 3-3.5 hour commute was not credible given where the claimant resided . It was submitted that in terms of disability there was no failure to accommodate the claimant and to argue that she was unique in the context of family status did not hold water. It was submitted that at all times the college was trying to accommodate the claimant in completing her placement. It was submitted that there was a variety of grants and bursaries which the claimant was eligible to apply for .

Summary of Pertinent Evidence of Respondent’s Witness Dr.X

Dr.X was formerly Head of Department and is currently Assistant Registrar with the respondent. She set out a chronological account of the claimant’s engagement with the college authorities in relation to her course on Social Care and her placement and referenced correspondence between the parties on the subject matter of undertaking Year 3 of the Social Care Programme in the year 2020-2021.She explained her advice to the claimant with regard to continuing on her course and the options open to her arising from the interruption to her course owing to a period of illness. She also advised the claimant of the placement requirements as per CORU regulations and suggested reviewing the situation with her academic supervisor. The witness said she had not heard from the claimant from September 2021 until the 20th.December 2021– the claimant had been ill during this period as was her daughter .The witness said she explained to the claimant CORU’s mandatory requirement of 800 hours placement .

The witness referred to the claimant’s letter of complaint regarding her academic supervisor and allocated a new supervisor and directed the claimant to the college support services including student support , nursing , counselling and chaplain services.

The witness referred to an email from the claimant on the 17th.Jan.2022 regarding an i.grade and the witness responded that this entitled her to repeat without incurring repeat fees. The witness referred to her email confirming that she would update the Programme Lead , careers and Employabilty Office and the Faculty Office on the claimant’s placement.

The witness said she ceased to be Head of Dept In June .

The witness said Induction Days were a mandatory component of the course – where students were advised of requirements , were assigned an academic supervisor , issued with a handbook and had the academic component of the course confirmed.The witness said that a weeks notice of the Induction Days was not unusual.

The witness referenced the matter of fees and her exchange with the claimant about not being able to pay fees. The witness referred to the availability of bursaries , a hardship fund and the options of applying for a waiver.

.Summary of Pertinent Evidence of Claimant’s Academic Supervisor Ms.B

The witness referenced the claimant’s academic inclusion notice as well as the claimant’s Placement Preference form .This document had been completed on the 5th.August 2022 and contained no reference to specific support requirements. The inclusion notice set out accommodations required for lectures / labs and tutorials. The witness said that at a Teams meeting with the claimant on the 21st.Sept., she went though the Preference Placement form with the claimant talked about her areas of interest , the matter of conflicts of interest and invited additional comments but there were none. She referred the claimant to - the academic inclusion notice -she said it did not apply to placements. She spoke of her daughter being ill but now being much better. The witness was not aware at this point that the claimant was a single parent of three children. The witness said if the claimant had engaged with her in June she would have been aware from that point of the date of the Induction Days. The witness referred to the document submitted by the respondent which set out the role of the Placement Officer in Careers ad Employability .The witness said that the issues around the practise educator surfaced on the second of September. She referred to the concerns of the Placement Committee that the delay by some students including the claimant that they would be able to complete the required 400 hours placement between September and December 2022.The witness referred to CORU requirements regarding placement criteria and practise educators .She said that they learned by email on Sept.10 that the practise educators proposed for a number of students including the claimant did not meet the CORU requirements. She confirmed the claimant was told about this and every effort was made to find a new placement for the claimant.

The witness referred to correspondence from the Placement Committee advising that the claimant wished to appeal the decision regarding the ineligibility of her practise educator and to complain about the transfer to a separate site. The witness charted the ensuing exchanges between the college and the claimant on her complaints. The witness referred to her email to the claimant explaining that the CORU criteria exists to ensure all placements offered to the colleges’s Social Care Work Students met the criteria of the regulatory body.

The witness said a student placement was not automatically guaranteed with an agency/ host body .The witness advised that the claimant did not refer to support requirements when the claimant completed her Placement Preference Form.

The witness referenced the documentation submitted into evidence which set out the role and relationship between the academic supervisor and the practise educator.

The witness said no update had been received from the claimant with regard to the Academic Inclusion Notice. The witness said if a student has specific requirements – they are discussed with the Disability Officer but no such request was made by the claimant .The witness was asked if a request for updating of the academic inclusion form had been made. She said it would be a matter for the student to pursue. The witness said she had tried to accommodate the claimant.

In response to Ms.B ’s evidence the claimant asked the witness about the inclusion of the Academic Inclusion Notice , the witness replied that she questioned the claimant regarding its application to placement but she did not reply. The witness said she told the claimant that the inclusion notice was academically based and needed to be updated with the assistance of the Disability Officer. The claimant replied that you still have a disability whether on placement or in the academic stream. The witness said it was not her role to make a decision on disability and that it was a matter for the Disability Officer.

Summary of Pertinent Evidence of Ms.Y on behalf of the Careers & Employabilty Dept.

The witness submitted a detailed chronology of her exchanges with the claimant in relation to her placement commencing in June 2022 when Dr.X requested C&E to liaise with the claimant regarding her placement. The witness confirmed she received the preferred placement form from the claimant after the 1 to 1 meeting. At that point the issue arose regarding the qualifications of the practise educator the witness said several efforts were made to secure a placement for the claimant in site E but the options were limited because of time pressures. She had a number of phone calls with the claimant and made efforts to source an alternative practise educator for the claimant . They discussed her assignment to the C project on the 22nd.Sept. and the claimant agreed to consider the proposal and revert to following day to confirm the placement. The witness said the claimant had made no issue about child care .On the 23rd.September the claimant asked what would happen if her children got ill and the potential impact this could have on the placement hours requirement - and the witness said she advised the claimant to raise the matter with the programme team.

The witness made an appointment for the claimant for a meeting with the Disability Officer – the witness received no further correspondence thereafter. The witness said the claimant had raised the matter of the children attending different schools and this was raised with the disability office – there were outreach programmes in different locations.

Summary of Pertinent Evidence of Ms.A regarding the role and functions of the Placement Committee

The witness described her role as having responsibility for monitoring placement – Ms.B had been the claimant’s academic supervisor.The agencies who host placements must be approved and complete a New Agency Form and Practise Educator form .The committee review the agencies engagement in social care practise and monitor and supervise the practise educators and check their qualifications and work experience. Sometimes educators are changed and we would contact the agency to appoint a replacement educator .The documents submitted into evidence highlighted the importance of CORU compliance and their work involves submitting a list of approved sites and approved practise educators that are CORU compliant.

The witness advised that Ms.B met the claimant on the 1st.September and the claimant formally registered on the 13th.September – placement is contingent on formal registration. The witness said that the moodle document submitted into evidence would have been circulated to all second years – placement preference forms are issued on the 6th.May.The witness explained that there can be capacity issues with practise educators – for example if an educator can only take 2 students .There were 20 students in E and issues can arise regarding meeting the CORU criteria. The witness outlined the differences between the service provided at the E site and the C site.The witness said there was a rationale for offering the claimant the C site – it was quieter and the claimant could also do outreach work in rural areas.

As regards induction days , the witness said that 2022 would have been the claimant’s third year to apply – the induction days happen the week before placement and the weeks doesn’t change.The witness confirmed that the claimant was notified of the decision to terminate her placement – the duty of care to staff was referenced.

Summary of Pertinent Evidence of Ms.Z – Disability Officer

The witness described her role as managing the inclusion and accommodations for students in the college vis a vis disabilities – with respect to academic and placement programmes. She confirmed the college made accommodations and recalled meeting the claimant. The students attend the Disability Office to formulate the Academic Inclusion Notice and the staff member organises distribution of the notice to academic staff. The witness confirmed that professional confirmation would be sought – both medical and psychological. The witness did not recall if there were separate notices for placements but thought there may have been.

Summary of Pertinent Evidence of Ms.D. Head of Dept.

The witness said her first involvement with the claimant was when she submitted a complaint form on the 22nd.Sept. 2022.The complaint form is documented in the claimant’s submission .The complaint referred to the lack of inclusive practises with TUS and the disorganisation of various departments within the institute; the complaint referenced the matter of Garda vetting , the short notice of induction days and the claimant’s placement at Site C arising from the issues around the qualifications of her practise educator and the impact of this on her childminding and travel arrangements .The witness said other options regarding a placement were explored and an alternative practise educator was sought. She met with the Disability Officer and it was decided to continue with the C site .The witness recounted the issues that ensued regarding the claimant’s placement and her conduct and the procedure embarked upon by the college. The witness referred to the fees and supports that are available to students. She stated that the college endeavoured to provide reasonable accommodations for students.

In response to Ms.D’s evidence , the claimant referred to the matter of photographs and contended that she was never given the minutes of the meeting / hearing of the 2nd.Dec. 2022

Findings and Conclusions:

I have reviewed the submissions of the parties and the evidence presented.

The claimant is complaining that she was discriminated against on the grounds of disability and family status by the college when the college failed to give her adequate notice of induction days for Sept.2022 and in reassigning her to an alternative placement from site E to site C .She alleges that the respondent failed to take into account the impact of this on her disability and her child care arrangements.

Section 3(1) provides that discrimination shall be taken to occur where :

(a) Where a person is treated less favourably than another person is , has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2)(in this Act referred to as the “discriminatory grounds”)

Section3(2) (c) provides that as between any 2 persons the discriminatory grounds are

That one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (“the family status ground “)

Section 3(2) (g) provides that as between any two persons , the discriminatory ground of disability is

(g)that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (“the disability ground).

Section 4 provides

4.—(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination includes a refusal or failure by the provider of a service to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.
		(2) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers shall not be deemed reasonable unless such provision would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question.
		(3) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers does not constitute discrimination if, by virtue of another provision of this Act, a refusal or failure to provide the service in question to that person would not constitute discrimination.
		(4) Where a person has a disability that, in the circumstances, could cause harm to the person or to others, treating the person differently to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent such harm does not constitute discrimination.
		(5) This section is without prejudice to the provisions of sections 7 (2)(a), 9 (a) and 15 (2)(g) of the Education Act, 1998 , in so far as they relate to functions of the Minister for Education and Science, recognised schools and boards of management in regard to students with a disability.
		(6) In this section—
		“provider of a service” means—
		(a) the person disposing of goods in respect of which section 5 (1) applies,
		(b) the person responsible for providing a service in respect of which section 5 (1) applies,
		(c) the person disposing of any estate or interest in premises in respect of which section 6 (1)(a) applies,
		(d) the person responsible for the provision of accommodation or any related services or amenities in respect of which section 6 (1)(c) applies,
		(e) an educational establishment within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 7 in relation to any of the matters referred to in subsection (2) of that section, or
		(f) a club within the meaning of section 8 (1) in respect of admission to membership or a service offered to its members,
		as the case may be, and “service” shall be construed accordingly;
		“providing”, in relation to the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers, includes making provision for or allowing such treatment or facilities, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly.

Section 38A(1) provides that the burden of proof is ;”Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her , it is for the respondent to prove the contrary “.It requires the complainant to establish , in the first instance , facts upon which he/she can rely in asserting that the prohibited conduct occurred. Therefore the complainant must first establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment and it is only when a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination.I am satisfied that the respondent is providing a service within the meaning of the Equal Status Acts .

There is no dispute that the claimant has a disability and this was confirmed in the respondents statement to the WRC.

In making my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence , written and oral made to me by the claimant and the respondent.I have examined in detail the documents furnished by both sides and in particular noted the extensive records of the communication between the claimant , her supervisor and the college authorities.I have noted in particular the time line charting said communications and taken account of the internal complaints procedure within the college .I have taken account of the respondent’s assertions that the claimant would have been aware of the proposed dates for the Induction Training based on the moodle mail of the 6th.May 2022 had she engaged at an earlier date with her academic supervisor. Additionally I have had regard to the fact that the claimant had been attending college since 2019 and would have known that Induction Days invariably take place in the week prior to Placement. While I acknowledge the claimant’s grievances with respect to the matter of her placement , I note she did not make any references to these matters in her Placement Preference Form. I am taking account of the fact that the claimant did not seek amendments to her academic inclusion notice or set out the accommodations she required in the context of her move from the E site to the C site. I further note that the claimant did not lodge an appeal against her allocated site and did not pursue the matter further.

I found the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses to be credible and compelling.I found the claimant has failed to provide any compelling evidence in support of her assertion that that she was treated less favourably by the respondent on the grounds of disability or family status or that the respondent failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation for her disability.

In such circumstances , I am satisfied that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of either disability or family status. Accordingly , I am satisfied that the complainant was not discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of disability or family status or in respect of a failure to provide reasonable accommodation.

Decision:

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

I find the complainant was not discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of disability or family status.

In light of the fact that the claimant failed to engage with the college with a view to amending the Inclusion Notice to set out any additional accommodations she required in the context of her revised placement and given the fact that she did not reference any such accommodations in her Placement Preference form , I find the claimant was not discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of disability pursuant to section 4 of the Equal Status Act s, 2000-2015 , in respect of a refusal or failure to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities , if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail herself of the service.

Dated: 26/01/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

Key Words:

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044164

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Student	A Third Level Institution

Representatives

The claimant represented herself

Edward Leahy Leahy Reidy Solicitors LLP

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00053779-001	18/11/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00053779-002	18/11/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00053779-003	18/11/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00053838-001	23/11/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00053838-002	23/11/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00053838-003	23/11/2022

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/05/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

The complainant withdrew her complaints under the Employment Equality Act - file references CA-00053779-001 , CA-00053779-002, CA-000553838-001 and CA-00053838-002.

This case contains references to sensitive information regarding the claimant’s disability therefore I have exercised my discretion and anonymised the decision.

Procedure:

Background:

The respondent denies the claims and contends that the respondent did not discriminate against the claimant on any grounds, directly or indirectly.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant submitted as follows by way of correspondence to the WRC dated the 20th.March 2023-Workplace Relations Commission 20th March 2023

In response to Ms.D’s evidence , the claimant referenced the matter of photographs and contended that she was never given the minutes of the meeting / hearing of the 2nd.Dec. 2022.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The names of the parties referred to in this submission are anonymised –

Dr. X – Assistant Registrar – former Head of Dept.

Ms. A -Placement Committee

Ms. B -Claimant’s Academic Supervisor

Ms. D- Head of Dept

Ms. Y – Careers & Employability

Ms. Z – Disability Officer

Introduction

7. At no time did the Respondent discriminate against the Complainant on any ground, directly or indirectly.

8. Background .

Facts

16. In January, 2022 the Complainant advised Dr X that she wished to complain about her supervisor. DrX assigned a new supervisor the same day.

18. Documents regarding the foregoing are included with those of Dr X, who was no longer head of the department of applied social sciences as of June, 2022.

32. In reply to Ms A, Ms Y stated, inter alia, that a social care worker at site C, may be in a position to supervise students but this had to be confirmed and a form completed.

35. Furthermore, on the 5th September, 2022 the Complainant communicated to C&E that she had been interviewed in respect of the E placement and would be commencing on the 12th September, 2022.

36. It appears that a practice educator who had the appropriate qualifications had been a practice educator at the said E site, however she had left same.

38. The Complainant raised no concerns whatsoever regarding attending the said induction days.

39. C&E established that the official practice educator form was awaited from the proposed practice educator at the said E site and that she had qualifications in sociology.

Conclusion

57. Thereafter, in dealing with Ms Y the Complainant was clearly satisfied to commence her placement at the C site.

58. The Complainant failed to allow her internal grievance run its course before delivering an ES1 and thereafter submitting a complaint or complaints to the WRC.

59. The Complainant has failed to identify any comparator on respect of her complaints.

60. The student with whom the Complainant was on placement at the C site had to travel farther than the Complainant and is a single mother with young children.

Summary of Pertinent Evidence of Respondent’s Witness Dr.X

The witness said she ceased to be Head of Dept In June .

.Summary of Pertinent Evidence of Claimant’s Academic Supervisor Ms.B

The witness referenced the documentation submitted into evidence which set out the role and relationship between the academic supervisor and the practise educator.

In response to Ms.B ’s evidence the claimant asked the witness about the inclusion of the Academic Inclusion Notice , the witness replied that she questioned the claimant regarding its application to placement but she did not reply. The witness said she told the claimant that the inclusion notice was academically based and needed to be updated with the assistance of the Disability Officer. The claimant replied that you still have a disability whether on placement or in the academic stream. The witness said it was not her role to make a decision on disability and that it was a matter for the Disability Officer.

Summary of Pertinent Evidence of Ms.Y on behalf of the Careers & Employabilty Dept.

Summary of Pertinent Evidence of Ms.A regarding the role and functions of the Placement Committee

Summary of Pertinent Evidence of Ms.Z – Disability Officer

Summary of Pertinent Evidence of Ms.D. Head of Dept.

In response to Ms.D’s evidence , the claimant referred to the matter of photographs and contended that she was never given the minutes of the meeting / hearing of the 2nd.Dec. 2022

Findings and Conclusions:

I have reviewed the submissions of the parties and the evidence presented.

Section 3(1) provides that discrimination shall be taken to occur where :

Section3(2) (c) provides that as between any 2 persons the discriminatory grounds are

That one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (“the family status ground “)

Section 3(2) (g) provides that as between any two persons , the discriminatory ground of disability is

(g)that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (“the disability ground).

Section 4 provides

4.—(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination includes a refusal or failure by the provider of a service to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.
		(2) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers shall not be deemed reasonable unless such provision would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question.
		(3) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers does not constitute discrimination if, by virtue of another provision of this Act, a refusal or failure to provide the service in question to that person would not constitute discrimination.
		(4) Where a person has a disability that, in the circumstances, could cause harm to the person or to others, treating the person differently to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent such harm does not constitute discrimination.
		(5) This section is without prejudice to the provisions of sections 7 (2)(a), 9 (a) and 15 (2)(g) of the Education Act, 1998 , in so far as they relate to functions of the Minister for Education and Science, recognised schools and boards of management in regard to students with a disability.
		(6) In this section—
		“provider of a service” means—
		(a) the person disposing of goods in respect of which section 5 (1) applies,
		(b) the person responsible for providing a service in respect of which section 5 (1) applies,
		(c) the person disposing of any estate or interest in premises in respect of which section 6 (1)(a) applies,
		(d) the person responsible for the provision of accommodation or any related services or amenities in respect of which section 6 (1)(c) applies,
		(e) an educational establishment within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 7 in relation to any of the matters referred to in subsection (2) of that section, or
		(f) a club within the meaning of section 8 (1) in respect of admission to membership or a service offered to its members,
		as the case may be, and “service” shall be construed accordingly;
		“providing”, in relation to the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers, includes making provision for or allowing such treatment or facilities, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly.

There is no dispute that the claimant has a disability and this was confirmed in the respondents statement to the WRC.

Decision:

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

I find the complainant was not discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of disability or family status

Dated: 26/01/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

Key Words: